Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.

I don't think I agree that public schools need to be abolished, but I do agree with these points that were made. My children entered the public school system last year for the first time in the 6th and 8th grade. An unfortunate consequence of the economy. Man was it a shock! They changed dramatically and it has been a huge effort to keep their heads in the right place. Parent don't realize how much they should be working at home to keep right values and morals deep rooted in their children. Part of the problem with public schools is that parent don't take responsibility once their kids get on the bus. Education should be a partnership between the parents and the school, with parents being held responsible when their kids go to school and act inappropriately.
With that being said, 1) I do agree schools need an effective discipline or consequence plan 2)In my state, a school principle is like a dictator of the school. She/he is not required to heed the advice of anyone not even a supervisor.(2) This is not right. 3) Teachers really should be hired just like any other job. I don't know why tenure is in place.(1) If worked for IBM and produced nothing I would be fired. It should be the same for teachers. At first when I heard what happened in Providence, RI recently where every teacher was fired to help meet the budget I was outraged. However, when I heard the entire story and realized that it was a necessary move to be able to keep the teachers that were the most effective in the class room, I think it was right on. A revamping of these systems really is in order.

It's simple to understand Natalie, if you take the funding away from public schools and give it to the parents both the schools and the teachers will now have to cater to their customers the students. Teacher unions do not like it because now their job is at stake if they don't perform. This will eliminate bad schools and bad teachers.

I'm not for public teacher unions. Unions only belong
in the private sector as it's purpose is linked to production and PROFIT. I'm also not for PUBLIC tax dollars going to PRIVATE schools. There is a difference between private and public - knock on wood.

Since when are we referring to students as "customers". Are they paying property tax? No.
You don't cater to students - you teach them. Catering
is for spoiled brats

We have created a school system that is stagnant, stuck in a bad format, and harnessed with the bloat of the Department of Education, that doesn't know it's ass from it's elbow.

If there are kids who haven't mastered the basic skills it is either because they ARE DUMB, or not interested. In either case - it wouldn't matter in what surroundings they learned in. For the academically dumb or "not interested" we need to have mandatory work study programs.

There are dumb (academically speaking) children out there - accept it and prepare them with something they can do as an adult Reality 101.

If I had my way, there would be a mandatory/optional opt out after middle school, allowing those that AREN'T academically inclined or INTERESTED to take another avenue - one of apprenticeship/skill building for employment.

I am so against vouchers, I can't tell you. Anytime you
mix private with public WITH public funding - there is
ALWAYS corruption. NOT if - ALWAYS. e.g. public school
unions

Supply and demand, not enough people with the funds to pay for them. If every parent has $10K at their disposal for each child I suspect the amount of private schools would explode.

Quote:

Fix the Public schools, THAT is the answer.

If you're allowing the kids to use these vouchers at any public or private school then it should go along way in fixing the public ones. You're making them accountable to the parents, your school will have to perform or it won't exist in a few years.

And since I never had kids or used a public school, I find it offensive that you want me to support private school for your kids.

I will support public education any day of the week, but you're stealing my tax dollars for your personal, private education.

Seems your larger concern is who is getting the funds as opposed to what is best for the students. You're paying for this whether the student goes to a public or private institution, why should you care where the money goes as long as the student gets the best education they can for the money available to them?

Why continue to support failing schools if there is better alternative simply because of who gets the money?

Since when are we referring to students as "customers". Are they paying property tax? No.
You don't cater to students - you teach them. Catering
is for spoiled brats

Under a voucher they basically would be customers because the school would need to attract students to get the funds. When I say cater I'm not talking about pampering them but providing a learning environment that fits the childs needs. For example this might spur a lot of schools that specialize in things like math, sciences, art, music, vocational studies etc. "One size fits all" schools could become a thing of the past.

As I already pointed out the PA legislation is going to allow a student to apply to any public or private school. The school will not be forced to accept them.

You also stated the program was for special needs students, for whom there can be very limited resources in some districts. When/if it becomes available to all students, you WILL see additional gov't restrictions.

My children entered the public school system last year for the first time in the 6th and 8th grade. An unfortunate consequence of the economy. Man was it a shock! They changed dramatically and it has been a huge effort to keep their heads in the right place. Parent don't realize how much they should be working at home to keep right values and morals deep rooted in their children.

Parents that home school do

Home Schooling "just isn't for the religious" ANYMORE
The reasons have changed.

In December 2008, the U.S. Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics released estimates on the number of American families homeschooling their children.

The report showed approximately 1.5 million children were being home schooled:
21 percent stated concern about the school environment 17 percent stated dissatisfaction with the academic instruction (Teachers) provided at schools.

Those stating "other" reasons, went from 20 percent in 2003 to 32 percent in 2007, which indicates expansion in the types of demographic groups homeschooling their children.

One private researcher estimates that as many as 2.5 million school-age children were educated at home during the 2007-2008 school year.

Of course this is 2008 data - but it's clear home schooling
is up a lot.

You also stated the program was for special needs students, for whom there can be very limited resources in some districts.

No, the initial phase will cover low income students in the lowest performing schools. Mostly in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. There isn't a single school in my area of the state this will apply too.

Three years from now it will cover any low income student.

My comment about special education was in regard to if they went all out and allowed any student to take advantage of this. Since the school doesn't have to accept the student those in need of special ed. would need some kind of stipulation that the school accept a percentage of them if they were going to accept vouchers.

Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.